Re: [PATCH trivial] block: GFP_ATOMIC is __GFP_HIGH

[Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:16:49 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> but it is not
> accidental that GFP_ATOMIC includes __GFP_HIGH - it's precisely when
> we're atomic that we need access to those extra reserves; and where
> we don't actually want them then we do say GFP_NOWAIT not GFP_ATOMIC.

I would expect GFP_ATOMIC just prevents sleeping, while it _could_ fail
(in theory) unless it is allowed to touch the emergency pools.

Actually, in many/most atomic contexts bail-out paths are possible for
allocation failures. And many/most of these atomic contexts have no
special reason to require emergency memory. Think about the usual
allocations enclosed within spinlocks.

> I expect the gfp flags will change in the future; but unless I missed
> somewhere, amongst all the places which specify GFP_ATOMIC throughout
> the kernel, this is the only one which ors in __GFP_HIGH too.  I don't
> believe it expected access to extra extra reserves!  So I thought we'd
> do best to remove the anomaly.

Yes, it seems this is the only place where this occurs.

Although I did not read all the code and resolved its implications, it
seems like it actually needs something like __GFP_NOFAIL (?) instead of
__GFP_HIGH. The slab itself is created with SLAB_PANIC.

> (But what I'd actually intended to grep for was __GFP_HIGHMEM.)
> 
> Hugh


	Eduard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/